Strange Case Continued ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

https://app.photobucket.com/u/StateF...3-023cea174f78

Is this play under NF rules considered an intentional foul? Contact above the shoulders right?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you did not answer my question. Are these two plays fouls under the POE you so gladly love to mention anytime you get a chance? And if so why?

Can't see the video. Some type of pay wall. I'm retired and live on a fixed income.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Can't see the video. Some type of pay wall. I'm retired an have a fixed income.

I might edit that video and post it on my OB page. I was just trying to avoid having to deal with the NCAA or CBS on that one.

Peace

[Raymond]

The purpose of a POE is to EMPHASIZE a rule, not re-write it. A POE should directly reference verbiage in a rule. This 2013 POE you keep referencing did not reference any existing rules verbiage. If that's what the NFHS wants adjudicated, then they need to add language to the 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 concerning contact to the head specifically. Maybe if they wrote the rules they wanted it interpreted and adjudicated the wouldn't have needed a POE.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The purpose of a POE is to EMPHASIZE a rule, not re-write it. A POE should directly reference verbiage in a rule. This 2013 POE you keep referencing did not reference any existing rules verbiage. If that's what the NFHS wants adjudicated, then they need to add language to the 4-19-3 and 4-19-4 concerning contact to the head specifically. Maybe if they wrote the rules they wanted it interpreted and adjudicated the wouldn't have needed a POE.

Preaching to the choir, and JRutledge and I are both in the choir (I'm a tenor).

Again, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the rulebook?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Preaching to the choir, and JRutledge and I are both in the choir (I'm a tenor).

Again, does that automatically make this Point of Emphasis invalid, null, and void after only one year in the rulebook?

Yes, it makes it invalid. Yes, there is no way easily to reference something to most people that cannot see it in the current rulebook. It is noted if you have nothing there to contradict an old interpretation, but how in the world can I reference something and I do not even know what year it was made? Other than these conversations on this site, I did not even know what year the POE took place. I do not keep those old rulebooks readily available and the app does not go back to old rulebooks either. To me it is silly to keep referencing these as the standard and the NF never changed or added any reference to this application of the rules. Heck they do not even talk about it in the NASO publications or constantly telling us how these are apart of intentional foul rulings. Most officials I know never heard of this site or would never come here if they do. We cannot rely on a very small part to expect everyone else to follow that logic.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, it makes it invalid.

And when exactly did it become invalid? One and done? Is that what the NFHS intended when it tried to decease contact above the shoulders?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

And when exactly did it become invalid? One and done? Is that what the NFHS intended when it tried to decease contact above the shoulders?

It became invalid when it was no longer published and they chose not to include the verbiage in succeeding rules and case books. By your logic, in 2052 we should still being using t as a reference.

Sounds like you're trying to justify your teaching of "automatic" rulings to new officials without having current references to validate your interpretation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Neither of these examples is comparable to us calling a specific foul for a specific action and not telling us if or when a play should be ruled incidental or not.

Agree. Only brought it up because both are old Points of Emphasis that never made their way into the rulebooks, two of your reasons for declaring such Points of Emphasis invalid, null, and void, which I believe that they aren't.